jump to navigation

Tree Trimming – with a Helicopter March 28, 2011

Posted by Retired Geezer in Art, Man Laws, Technology.
trackback

Flyin’ Brian has worked for an Oil Drilling company for the last 5 years.
The company was sold recently and the bean counters have decided to phase out the helicopter and consequently his job.

He is in North Carolina auditioning for a job trimming trees.

This is what it looks like.

Here’s a  link with Guns n’ Roses music. I couldn’t embed it.

Comments»

1. daveintexas - March 28, 2011

Guns n’ Roses?

2. Michael tried a homemade butt tattoo - March 29, 2011

Guns n’ Roses?

Saws n’ Treeses?

3. wiserbud - March 29, 2011

It was Guns & Roses doing a cover of Crazy Train.

And now you know why GnR is over.

4. Dave in Texas - March 29, 2011

well there you go.

5. Retired Geezer - March 29, 2011

What tha?

6. wiserbud - March 29, 2011

theory…. intact.

7. skinbad - March 29, 2011

If you stick with it long enough you’ll get your GnR. Don’t question Geezer. He’s a professional.

8. wiserbud - March 29, 2011

If you stick with it long enough you’ll get your GnR.

Look, I’m a busy man. I don’t have time to wait, ya know?

Now please excuse, the buzzer just went off on the dryer and I can’t let my wife’s blouses get wrinkled.

work, work, work……

9. David Larsen - March 29, 2011

Pat – Thanks for posting my video from http://www.lcfvideo.com about the big saw. I am happy to know you an amateur radio operator. I have been licensed for 57 years and still at it with calls KK4WW and N4USA. Hope all goes well for the job for your son – let me know about it. 73 Dave

10. Retired Geezer - March 29, 2011
11. lauraw - March 30, 2011

Please vote for #1 by Jasmine.

It’s for my Mom. She’s all excited.

http://www.ctnow.com/weddings/dreamwedding/dress/

12. Retired Geezer - March 30, 2011

Please vote for #1 by Jasmine.

I voted.

But I used Dave’s email address.

13. Retired Geezer - March 30, 2011

Ruh Roh!

Planned Parenthood caught in a lie.

Hope Mark doesn’t see this.

14. Cecile Richards - March 30, 2011

Planned Parenthood caught in a lie.

I think you may have misheard me.

I said “ham sammiches”, not “mammograms”.

Simple mistake to make and I forgive you.

15. Cathy - March 30, 2011

Voted for #1, Jasmine online…

but REALLY like that third one for our Sohos.

16. Michael - March 30, 2011

I refuse to participate in a rigged election.

For free.

17. lauraw - March 30, 2011

Too late now, anyway. It’s over.

18. Retired Geezer - March 30, 2011

Did we win?

19. Cathy - March 30, 2011

Ruh Roh! Planned Parenthood caught in a lie. Hope Mark doesn’t see this.

Um. Geezer, I hope Mark DOES see this. Planned Parenthood just keeps digging deeper in the doggie doo-doo.

20. osoloco - March 30, 2011

Two of my cousins were in Med School. Both are very Pro-Life. UNM Med school sent both of them to work at Planned Parenthood for a few shifts for educational purposes. They refused to do abortions or provide treatment against their faith. Their advisor thought it was cute to send them there. They are both Republicans now.

21. Retired Geezer - March 30, 2011

osoloco, (Crazy Bear?)

Thanks for sharing that.
Made me smile.

22. Cathy - March 30, 2011

Kudos to your family members, Osoloco.

Planned Parenthood is a double oxymoron… They don’t give a crap about “planning.” If they did then they would be helping women prevent unwanted pregnancies. And they are more into killing “parenthood” than nurturing it.

In the 1970s I went to Planned Parenthood for my annual exam and prescription for birth control. I distinctly remember my visit with the counselor being very strange. At least three times during the interview, she mentioned that “if something happens and I get pregnant… that they would help me take care of that too.” I told her that I planned to dutifully take my pills, that I was a married woman, and if I still ended up pregnant we’d have the baby. I was young and naive, but I got the message. They were pushing their abortion services. It felt creepy and left there feeling like I needed a shower.

23. osoloco - March 31, 2011

I got the crying phone calls because they felt the presence of Evil. I have PCOS and was unable to ovulate and there were fertility specialists that really creeped me out. It is a slippery slope.I am pretty sure that I made the right choices. The term “selective reduction” is a part of the lexicon. It breaks my heart. Retired Geezer, you’ve been making me smile for years. I’m breaking out of my shell.

24. Retired Geezer - March 31, 2011

Retired Geezer, you’ve been making me smile for years. I’m breaking out of my shell.

*blushes*

*sends a big hug out through the intertubes*

25. geoff - March 31, 2011

Hey osoloco, if you drop hints that you’re really from Vatican City, but can’t afford to go back home, I’ll bet you can scam a free trip to Italy out of Michael.

26. lauraw - March 31, 2011

It looks like that dress did win!! It’s the only one showing on the page now!

YAAAAAYYYYY!
thanks everybody!!

27. Mark in NJ - March 31, 2011

OK, I’ll bite.

First question is, why would anyone take Brietbart’s “news” at face value? But, hey, there are lots of liberal barking dogs who are just as full of baloney (and full of themselves).

Based on the clip, I’d say the lady from Planned Parenthood got over-zealous and fudged her case. I don’t think I heard her specifically state that the PP clinics perform mammograms, but I agree the implication is there. (I also think she might be correct on some level, that if the clinics go away, the referrals will also, and more women with breast cancer may go undiagnosed as a result.)

But Brietbart’s having none of it — the only possible explanation is that she’s a COMPLETE LIAR. That’s what we used to call “chariots of the gods” thinking. Like that deal in the 70s — guy sees some shapes carved on a plateau and tries to convince us the only possible explanation is they were made by visitors from outer space. Really? I can think of lots of other explanations and they’re all more credible than spacemen did it.

In summary: typical Brietbart hype, spun and edited to make his case. Doesn’t change my mind.

Regarding the atmosphere in a PP clinic — I’ve never set foot in one. If you have and you tell me it’s creepy, I take your word for it.

And if all this is really a coded conversation about whether abortion should be made illegal, I’m sure you can guess my POV and (looking at my bruises from the NPR dialog) I’m thinking it’s probably not a constructive conversation for us to have.

28. Retired Geezer - March 31, 2011

Maybe Mark could disguise his voice and call PP himself and ask about getting a mammogram.

29. BrewFan - March 31, 2011

I bet Mark hates puppy mills though.

Michael - March 31, 2011

“fudged her case”?

Jeebers, Mark.

I guess Clinton was just “fudging” about Monica.

30. Mark in NJ - March 31, 2011

Hey Geezer – I’m not sure what good that would do. The clip did at least convince me that I can’t get a mammogram at a PP facility.

And why would I need to disguise my voice? Don’t man-boobs need radiation, too?

31. Mark in NJ - March 31, 2011

Michael – No, I’d say Cliniton was flat-out lying. Said he didn’t have sex with “that woman” when he actually did.

And that’s the difference — PP woman isn’t lying exactly. She doesn’t explicitly say you can get a mammogram at a PP office; she says women will lose their access to mammograms, mammograms, mammograms…a fudge for sure — I’d say due to losing her head in the interview.

You’re a lawyer, right? If she was accused of saying PP performs mammograms, is there a solid case against her based just on that clip?

32. geoff - March 31, 2011

I’d convict her. She said that enacting the bill to defund Planned Parenthood would result in loss of access to mammograms. That was a lie.

33. Mark in NJ - March 31, 2011

depends on your definition of “access to”

34. daveintexas - March 31, 2011

Defund them.

Mammograms will go on where they are actually performed. If “access to” means the person answering the phone at the PP clinic has a phone number tacked to her cubicle wall of some place that actually does them, they don’t need federal funding for that. There’s google and shit.

Asserting this will impact women’s access to mammograms is flat out bullshit. They’re abortion factories for profit. That’s it.

35. Bill Clinton - March 31, 2011

Depends on what your definitions of “is” is.

If you get caught in a lie just change the definitions of the words you use. It’s the Liberal Way.

36. geoff - March 31, 2011

depends on your definition of “access to”

“Loss of access” means that you can no longer get a mammogram. There’s only one definition.

37. Yakov Smirnoff - March 31, 2011

In Soviet Russia, mammogram machines access YOU!

38. daveintexas - March 31, 2011

>> First question is, why would anyone take Brietbart’s “news” at face value?

Because he has a very credible record.

39. Retired Geezer - March 31, 2011

Don’t man-boobs need radiation, too?

*takes closer look at Wiserbud*

Yeah but those are implants.

40. wiserbud - March 31, 2011

my eyes are up here, Geezer…..

Michael - March 31, 2011

You’re a lawyer, right?

Yes. How do you know that? Did Geoff tell on me?

If she was accused of saying PP performs mammograms, is there a solid case against her based just on that clip?

Yes. It’s called “fraud in the inducement.” She clearly said that PP provides mammograms that will not be available without public funding. I.e., PP is not just an abortion mill. Thus, an attempted false statement of material fact upon which the plaintiffs (taxpayers) might reasonably rely (she is major cute and credible looking), and were damaged. If you parse that last sentence, you will discern the five elements of fraud in the inducement which we learn in law school. It is a legal mortar shell, because if you can prove it you can nullify contracts.

Michael - March 31, 2011

Hey, I’m in a good mood. I’ll parse that sentence for you, so you understand fraud.

1. Statement of fact, not just mere advertising puffery. She said PP provides mammograms that won’t be available without federal funding.

2. The purported fact must be false. PP does not provide mammograms.

3. The purported fact must be material to the transaction, i.e., not some incidental claim. PP is trying to look like it’s not an abortion mill, but just a family health care service. Clearly material.

4. Reasonable reliance on the false fact. Meaning, you did not know that she was an aluminum siding salesperson. You can’t prove fraud on the basis that you were stupid or gullible. Hey, she’s the frickin’ CEO of PP, and looks pretty good and actually sounded sincere while she lied.

5. Damage. The debt my children will have to pay off to maintain her hairdo and privileged lifestyle.

Those five elements will nullify a contract. They can also put someone in jail.

So, Mark, maybe next time a fraudulent statement is exposed, you will (I hope) be able to identify it.

41. Tushar - March 31, 2011

>>So, Mark, maybe next time a fraudulent statement is exposed, you will (I hope) be able to identify it.

No. Next time Mark encounters a fraudulent statement by a liberal, he will obfuscate, misdirect, change the subject, blame some conservative, poke his fingers in his ears and mumble ‘I can’t hear you, la la la la…’

42. Michael - March 31, 2011

Hey Tushar, how are your incredibly cute brown kids doing?

If you send me a picture of them, I will post it.

43. Michael - March 31, 2011

I wish white children were as cute as brown ones. Maybe that’s why we are not breeding at the replacement rate of 2.2 kids per female.

My own two children, of course, were just as cute as yours. That’s why I did not kill them when they were teenagers.

44. daveintexas - March 31, 2011

Hey, what you gonna believe, you’re own eyes and ears, or someone explain to you that the biographer isn’t credible?

45. kevlarchick - March 31, 2011

My children are neither cute nor brown.

46. Michael - March 31, 2011

My children are neither cute nor brown.

So, you want me to kill them for you?

47. daveintexas - March 31, 2011

Mine start out whitebread like dad, but seem to do that whole brown up thing through the summer. Eldest not so much and she better be careful or her dermatologist will yell at her like mine does in 25 years.

48. doc - April 1, 2011

Ah, another argument Mark will check back to make sure you wingnuts don’t think you are winning. Just because she blatantly lied doesn’t take away an iota of the truthiness of what she said. See, liberalese aint so hard.

49. Retired Geezer - April 1, 2011

Could we talk about Wiser’s boobs some more?
A friend is curious.

50. kevlarchick - April 1, 2011

Kill my kids Michael?
I think not. Yet.
The boy will be 20 and seems to be done with his brushes with the law. And the girl is so lovely and low-drama I think I’ll keep her around.

51. Dave in Texas - April 1, 2011

I was just hittin my stride at 20.

I fought the law and the, law won,
I fought the law and the, law-aw won.

52. kevl - April 1, 2011

Good to know Dave. Plus you have an impressive arsenal. I may be calling on your for some wet work in the near future.

53. geoff - April 1, 2011

Good to know Dave. Plus you have an impressive arsenal.

Young lady!!

54. Retired Geezer - April 1, 2011

I fought the law and the, lauraw won.

FIFY

55. wiserbud - April 1, 2011

Could we talk about Wiser’s boobs some more?
A friend is curious.

They’re real. And they’re spectacular.

56. daveintexas - April 1, 2011

>> I may be calling on your for some wet work in the near future.

*emails you my top secret contact info. Use the decoder.

57. kevl - April 1, 2011

For a bunch of ninjas, you are all idiots.

58. daveintexas - April 1, 2011

I’ll be off the grid and in my bunk.

59. Mark in NJ - April 1, 2011

Michael – it was probably Mrs Geoff who ratted you out as a lawyer – I also may have gleaned it from previous posts/comments. If I wasn’t supposed to mention, I apologize. In fairness (and if you care), I’m willing to admit what I do for a living.

I have to respectfully disagree with you on your statement #1: she doesn’t say “PP provides mammograms” — she says “women will lose their access to…mammograms.” In law, is implying the same as directly saying?

What if you were forced to represent the PP woman? Don’t you think you’d try a strategy that attempted to create doubt in the jurors’ minds that the tape can only be interpreted one way? Maybe by doing the following:
1. Challenge that first assertion — call witness from the prosecution, run the tape and force witness to admit the tape does not show your client explicitly stating PP performs mammograms.
2. On the stand, lead your client to say, in the heat of a discussion she cares passionately about, that she may have misspoken but it’s still basically correct because of the referrals blah blah blah.

I say she’s sympathetic, she’s MILFy and I bet she walks.

60. daveintexas - April 1, 2011

Criminy. She clearly states it would adversely impact women’s access to mammograms. This is not a misstatement. But it won’t at all, so it’s a bullshit statement. “Referral services” do not need federally funded secretaries to prevent the catastrophe of a woman having to look up a phone number.

This is a semantic bullshit defense, she means clealy to imply that PP is a critical link in women’s access to mammograms, and loss of federal funds would mean “whatever are these women to do?”

A kind description of this is “completely dishonest”.

61. Michael - April 1, 2011

No, Mark, I would not try to prove the statement was factually true. Both me and my MILFy client would lose all credibility with the jury and just earn their contempt. As Dave pointed out, she’s arguing for tax dollars to provide health services, not answer the phone.

Were I defending her, I would have a better chance arguing that she just goofed, i.e., she had somehow gotten the erroneous impression that PP provides mammograms, so that the misstatement was negligent rather than intentional and thus not fraudulent (I guess it’s obvious, but I should have mentioned above that a fraud must be intentional). I would guess that may be what actually happened here. Lot’s of people get nervous and make mistakes in front of a camera. It’s hard to believe that a person in her position is so stupid as to tell an blatant lie that is so easily exposed. It would help a lot if she issues a prompt correction saying she misspoke and should have used a different example. Maybe she has, I don’t know. But dissembling further by attempting to argue that “access to mammograms” meant “getting the phone number of people who actually do that” won’t fly with any objective juror.

My next best argument would be that there was no reasonable reliance on her misstatement, because there is an extensive public record about what PP actually does, and any amount of due diligence would have revealed that taxpayers are not funding mammograms. It’s common knowledge that they focus on reproductive health and family planning issues, not cancer. In other words, my argument would be “any fool could figure out that my client was talking out of her ass (and boy howdy, she sure has a nice one).”

Of course, all this is moot because she has been publicly exposed at this point. No harm no foul, so the damage element is lacking.

62. Russ from Winterset - April 1, 2011

>>*emails you my top secret contact info. Use the decoder.

ALWAYS REMEMBER TO DRINK YOUR OVALTINE

63. geoff - April 1, 2011

she means clealy to imply that PP is a critical link in women’s access to mammograms

…and the way she said it, they are the sole link for some women’s access to mammograms.

64. lauraw - April 1, 2011

Did we cover this artist that does the long film exposure light dealios?

Love this one: http://is.gd/c4stUW

http://is.gd/bmMPBi

http://is.gd/TAINsJ

65. Michael - April 1, 2011

Fuck, I did it again. I tried to reason with a liberal.

Sumbuddy kick me in the nuts next time I do that.

66. Michael - April 1, 2011

The problem is, Mark almost sounds like he is a sentient human being.

I should know better by now.

67. daveintexas - April 1, 2011

How the hell does that photography work?

It’s awesome

68. lauraw - April 1, 2011

I did some long exposures with film in high school like that.

Just used a tripod and held my finger down on the ‘bulb’ setting on my Pentax while cars passed my house at night. Came out pretty cool looking; stripes of light hovering above a dark road.

69. doc - April 1, 2011

I think you did a good job with him, Batman. I know I’m a hopeless romantic, but I think Mark may be susceptible to facts and reason.

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.” – Ronald Reagan

70. daveintexas - April 1, 2011

>> I did some long exposures with film in high school like that.

I used to do stuff like that with an old manual Yashica 35mm. I did one where I sat on one side of the couch then jumped over to the other side of the couch looking back.

I looked like two idiots looking at each other.

Then I did the light thing with car headlights, and airplanes.

71. harrison - April 2, 2011

Those shots are done with light painting, during a long exposure someone uses a flashlight or laser pointer to draw on the items in the shot.

72. daveintexas - April 2, 2011

Oh.

well.

I was hopin for really well trained fireflies.

73. Michael - April 2, 2011

Man, trust Harrison to take the magic out of everything.

Next he’s gonna tell us Santa Claus is not real.

*pokes fingers in ears*

I’M NOT LISTENING!

NEENER NEENER NEENER NEENER NEENER!!!

74. Retired Geezer - April 2, 2011

someone uses a flashlight or laser pointer to draw on the items in the shot.

I ain’t drawing Dave’s package.

75. daveintexas - April 2, 2011

*hands you the mini laser*

76. harrison - April 2, 2011

Man, trust Harrison to take the magic out of everything.

Don’t hate the player, hate the system.

77. lauraw - April 2, 2011

*suddenly hugs harrison*

*whispers in his ear ‘I’ve been drinking’ *

*holds finger to lips shhhhh*

78. Retired Geezer - April 2, 2011

*hands you the mini laser*

*plus it into convenient 440volt outlet.

Shall we start with the back hair?

79. daveintexas - April 2, 2011

Isha secremt.

80. harrison - April 2, 2011

I’m so lucky.

81. lauraw - April 2, 2011

*holds the wall, asks it to dance*

*is brutally rejected*

82. Lipstick - April 2, 2011

Yay! Laura’s not wasting her day off by cooking and cleaning! Feels good, eh?

83. harrison - April 2, 2011

Com’ere, good-lookin’.

84. daveintexas - April 2, 2011

WHAT THE FUCK ARE HAPPENING TO MY COMMENTS.. oh hi there.

how’s things?

85. lauraw - April 2, 2011

Oh, Honey. Not exactly.

I did the dishes, baked chicken and potatoes, made a soup stock for tomorrow’s parsnip and leek soup, went food shopping, and juiced some citrus for a marinade that I have a pork roast sitting in right now.

But I did get to sleep in til nine, and that was awesome. I feel great.

86. daveintexas - April 2, 2011

I did dishes. Some.

ok one.

I didn’t cook a chicken, but the night is young.

87. Mark in NJ - April 3, 2011

Thanks, Michael. Very instructive.

My only legal experience is some involvement w/ Vioxx litigation a few yrs back. And my takeaway from that was that any assertion (even when supported by data and stat analysis) could be open to interpretation in a court. Edifying – and very frustrating at the time.

See? I can be reasoned with.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: